ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00028535
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Brenda Cox | Osfield Limited Mullingar Pharmacy |
Representatives | John Cox | Healy Law Dublin LLP |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00036661-001 | 14/06/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 30/05/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Anne McElduff
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act [2015-2021], following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to present any relevant evidence. I drew the parties attention to the implications of the Supreme Court decision in Zalewski V Adjudication Officer and WRC [2021] IESC 24 and I note the WRC did likewise.
The adjudication hearing commenced on 15/2/21. On that occasion the hearing was conducted remotely pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. The Complainant attended and was accompanied and assisted by her husband. Various representatives of the Respondent also attended.
The adjudication hearing resumed in Mullingar Court House on 7/3/2023 and the parties were notified of same by letter from the WRC of 31/1/2023. Neither the Complainant nor the Respondent attended. However the Complainant emailed the WRC on 6/3/2023 requesting that the hearing be cancelled. I adjourned the adjudication hearing and by letter of 7/3/2023 the WRC advised the parties that a resumed hearing would be scheduled.
The parties were notified by letter from the WRC of 18/4/2023 of the resumed hearing scheduled for Mullingar Court House on 30/5/2023. Whilst the Complainant corresponded with the WRC to the effect that she was pursuing a separate complaint for constructive dismissal, she did not withdraw her original complaint of 14/6/2020. Accordingly the adjudication hearing scheduled for 30/5/2023 proceeded. The Complainant did not attend. The Respondent attended and was represented by Mr Dylan West BL.
Background:
The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 5/10/1998. The WRC received her Complaint Form on 14 June 2020 which detailed a specific complaint pursuant to the Organisation of Working Time Act [1997-2020]. In addition, the Complainant stated the following on the Complaint Form with regard to a meeting held with the Respondent in 2019:
“My complaints focus on issues which arose prior to the meeting, during the meeting and after the meeting. Documentation being sent by post/email will give you more information in respect the complaints made and the remedies sought as this information cannot easily be categorized and presented in this form”
The adjudication hearing of 15/2/2021 dealt with the Complainant’s complaint pursuant to the Organisation of Working Time Act [1997-2020].
Following the adjudication hearing of 15/2/2021 the Complainant emailed the WRC on 26/2/2021 and enquired as to “how it came about that only the underpayment of bank holidays was selected for adjudication” and that she was “not treated fairly and that the details in [her] submission were completely misunderstood by the WRC”.
The Complainant submitted additional documentation to the WRC including on 17/6/2020, 18/6/2020, 19/6/2020, 21/6/2020, 22/6/2020, 15/7/2020 and 27/8/2020.
The WRC corresponded with the Complainant and the Respondent including by letters of 26 March 2021, 18 May 2021, 3 June 2021 and 29 July 2021 which in summary: · Requested the Complainant to summarise any outstanding complaints; · Advised that my role as Adjudication Officer was to decide each complaint in accordance with the redress provision specified in the legislation under which the complaint has been brought; · Advised that in order to progress matters I would convene a case management hearing for the purpose of clarifying the complaints and affording the Respondent an opportunity to respond and that thereafter, the substantive matters would be dealt with at a subsequent adjudication hearing; · Drew attention to the time limits prescribed by the Workplace Relations Act [2015-2021].
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case
The Complainant stated on the Complaint Form that she had not received her public holiday entitlements. However, at the adjudication hearing the Complainant stated that there were no outstanding bank holiday payments due to her in the six months prior to receipt of her complaint by the WRC/14 June 2020 nor for the previous 12 months period. In this regard, the Complainant stated that outstanding monies/days due to her in respect of public holidays had been corrected.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent outlined its payroll system. The Respondent stated that whilst mistakes may have been made in the past these were now tidied up and that it had engaged an external professional to deal with its payroll and accounts. The Respondent stated that the Complainant had been paid all public holidays due to her in the six and 12 month period prior to 14 June 2020. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Other than the complaint specified on the Complaint Form received by the WRC on 14 June 2020, the Complainant did not particularise any other complaint before me within the parameters of the Workplace Relations Act [2015-2021]. In respect of the complaint set out on the Complaint Form, the relevant legislative provisions are as follows: Section 21(1) of the Organisation of Working Time Act [1997-2020] which states: “21.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, an employee shall, in respect of a public holiday, be entitled to whichever one of the following his or her employer determines, namely— (a) a paid day off on that day, (b) a paid day off within a month of that day, (c) an additional day of annual leave, (d) an additional day's pay: Provided that if the day on which the public holiday falls is a day on which the employee would, apart from this subsection, be entitled to a paid day off this subsection shall have effect as if paragraph (a) were omitted therefrom……”
Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act [2015 - 2021] which provides that: “Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.” Having considered the submissions and evidence, I am satisfied the Complainant was paid all such public holidays as were due to her in the six month period prior to the submission of her complaint to the WRC. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act [2015 – 2021] requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
CA-00036661-001 For the reasons outlined I decide this complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 04-04-2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Anne McElduff
Key Words:
Public Holidays |